Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Sinha Aged About 40 ... vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 16 September, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Review Application No. 10/2013 in O.A. No. 200/2009 Reserved on 8.9.2015 Pronounced on 16.9.2015 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar , Member (J) Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member (A) Ravi Ranjan Kumar Sinha aged about 40 years son of late Sri Lal Babu Roy resident of Block No. 10/E-2, Badshah Nagar Railway Colony, Lucknow. Applicant By Advocate: Sri Praveen Kumar Versus 1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 3. The Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow. Respondents By Advocate: Sri Rajendra Singh ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present Review is preferred by the applicant u/s 22(3)(f ) of AT Act, 1985 read with rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for reviewing the order dated 15th October, 2012 passed in O.A.No. 200/2009.
2. The applicant preferred the present review application taking ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the pleadings available on record. The learned counsel for the applicant has also indicated that there is a specific para 228 of IREM 1989 which has not been considered by the Tribunal, as such the judgment dated 15.10.2012 is erroneous, invalid and bad in the eyes of law and it amounts to be reviewed as the same is an error apparent on the face of record, accordingly the order under review is liable to be reviewed.
3. On behalf of the respondents, objection as well as counter reply is filed in which it is indicted that the present review application is barred by limitation and it is also indicated that there is no error apparent on the face of record and whatever material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided the O.A. The respondents also mentions certain facts through their counter reply and also indicated that the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is reasoned and speaking one, as such it is wrong to allege that the order of the Tribunal is not reasoned and speaking one.
4. On behalf of the applicant, Rejoinder reply is filed and through which mostly the averments made in the Review Application are reiterated and denied the contents of objection/ counter reply filed by the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records of review application as well as original application.
6. While deciding the O.A. this Tribunal perused the records and also the relevant provisions of IREM Volume I which was submitted by the applicant in compliance of the Tribunals order dated 27.7.2011, through which the learned counsel for applicant was directed to show the relevant rules for filling up of non- selection posts by senior most suitable railway servant governing the promotion of Group C staff deployed on Indian Railway and all others subordinate offices of the Railway Board are laid down in para 214 of Railway Establishment Manual.
7. The bare perusal of the original record shows that the matter was exhaustively contested by the parties and after due deliberation , the Tribunal passed the orders.
8. It is undisputed that the present review application is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under the AT Act.
9. In the case of K.Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India 1997 (6) SCC 473 (para 4), while examining the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act and Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules and also order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the Honble Apex Court laid down that right of review is available to the aggrieved person on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation. The matter of condonation of delay in such cases also came up before the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Directror of School Education, Warangal and others -2005(4) SLR 720. The matter was also examined by the Full Bench with reference to Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act, 1985 and other relevant provisions of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, provisions of the Limitation Act etc. and it was held that a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the Review Application. It was laid down that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay by taking aid and assistance of either sub section (3) of Section 21 of the Act or Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. It may be mentioned here that provisions of Rule 19 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 which are similar to above Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 were also considered which are as under:-
No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed.
10. Thus the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal , unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality . If such a power to review is permitted without any limitation then no decision would be final because the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of the party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case for all times to come. Therefore, the public policy demands that there should be an end of legal cases.
11. As regards the merit of the case is concerned, the scope of review is very limited. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , that review proceedings cannot be considered by way of an appeal and have to be strictly continued to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and review petition is required to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. The Honble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe that while deciding the review, the matter cannot be re-apprised and only typographical error apparent on record can be reviewed.
12. In another case of Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC -715, the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under:-
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997.
13. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
14. Review is not appeal in disguised. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India the Honble Apex Court held 56. It follows , therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.
15. There appears no error apparent on the face of record and the scope of review is very limited. Entertaining any new provision or new facts would amount to exercising the appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible under the Review jurisdiction.
16. After due perusal of records, we are of the considered view that the applicant failed to make out any case for reviewing the order on merits as well as on limitation. As such the present Review Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Jayati Chandra) (Navneet Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-